Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandria’s Genesis


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Really, this is one of those there's no need to discuss for a week. Courcelles 11:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexandria’s Genesis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is about an internet hoax. That a hoax occurred and got some internet traffic is not in doubt. But GNews indicates the hoax was never the subject of any reports, and even Snopes.com draws a blank. So, I call not notable. Scott Mac 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A Google search for Alexandria's Genesis shows this as the first result. All other results on the first page, and the majority of all results, perpetuate it as a truth. This page needs to remain here so that people are better informed of this hoax. The fact that no other respected sources make comment of it simply further reinforces this need. Dantai Amakiir 21:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, "need" is not a reason for keeping an article. We keep if it meets our estimation of notability. You need to show some evidence of that. The fact that there's so little traffic counts against that.--Scott Mac 22:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are no reliable sources that treat the hoax or even mention it (and of course there isn't any treating it as an actual condition). A large amount of unreliable sources does sometimes prejudice me towards keeping, but this one is not that large if you look closely, and the repetition of content (and lack-there-of) is consistent throughout the reports and it corresponds to the first stage of the hoax. No measure was reportedly sought or proposed against the "condition", and it seems to have vanished without hitting the mainstream media jackpot. The only reason I can think of (and it is most certainly not guideline based by any means) is that I feel it is a fair service to record and report the situation as a hoax (and I agree with Dantai Amakiir that the fact that no respected sources make comment reinforces the need for comment). The matter with doing that is not notability but verifiability, as there seems to be no pertinent authority denying it, so we have no one to quote, and it would mostly depend on how much of the fact that it is a hoax is actually a matter of fact. But even then an article would be too much. Is there a List of Internet Hoaxes or something for a redirect? - frankieMR (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This falls too far short of required notability. Sources mostly use the phrase when talking of the foundation of the city of Alexandria. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not-notable and nowhere near verifiable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.